Dismissed

Late Mahanta Shri Ram Saran Deos Le v. Ashish Das and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Aug 2020SA/111/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal concerning a dispute over the appointment of a temple Mahant, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal. The bench rejected the appellant's claim to the office and held the counter-claim was not maintainable as it targeted only co-defendants, citing Rohit Singh.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No order as to cost(s).

Late Mahanta Shri Ram Saran Deos Le Vs… — Succession and Inheritance | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No.111 of 2009

¶5

Late Mahanta Shri Ram Saran Deo’s legal heir Shekhar Saran Das Guru Late Shri Ram Saran Deo, aged 14 years, Minor through guardian the natural father Shri Vijaya Kishan Goswami, R/o Village Mohtara, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.)

¶6

(Defendant No.3) ---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shri Ashish Das, aged 27 years, S/o Shri Vishwanath Pandey, Shankar Nagar Goura Chowk, Village and Post District Durg (C.G.)

¶9

(Plaintiff)

¶10

Shri Kapi Nath Mahobiya, aged 26 years, S/o Dr. Bhushan Ram Mahobiya, R/o Ward Para Chhuikhadan, presently residing at Padadah, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶11

(Defendant No.1)

¶12

Shri Ram Bali Das, aged 60 years, Pujari, Ramhepur Mandir, R/o Sahaspur, Post Lohara, Tahsil and District Kawardha (C.G.)

¶13

(Defendant No.2)

¶14

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Defendant No.4)

¶15

Nayab Tahsildar, through Prabhari Village Padadah, through Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶16

(Defendant No.5) ---- Respondents

¶17

For Appellant / LR of defendant No.3: -

¶18

Mr. M.D. Sharma, Advocate.

¶19

For Respondent No.3 / Defendant No.2: -

¶20

Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate.

¶21

For Respondents No.4 and 5 / State: -

¶22

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General.

¶23

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶24

Order On Board

¶25

05/08/2020

¶26

Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video

¶27

¶28

conferencing.

¶29

Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the LR of defendant No.3.

¶30

Mr. M.D. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein / LR of defendant No.3, would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in dismissing the counter-claim of defendant No.3 and not holding that he is entitled to work as Mahant of Thakur Jugal Kishore Mandir situated at Village Pandadah, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, by recording a finding which is perverse to the record and the appeal involves substantial question of law for determination.

¶31

Plaintiff Ashish Das filed suit that he is entitled to be appointed as Mahant Sarvarakar of Thakur Jugal Kishore Mandir situated at Village Pandadah, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon and decree be granted for possession of the property mentioned in Schedule A annexed with the plaint and the defendants be restrained from interfering with his possession in which defendant No.2 filed written statement opposing the prayer and defendant No.3 laid a counter-claim that he is working as Mahant duly appointed by Mohatra Mahant Mandir Headquarter and defendant No.2 is not entitled to work as Sarvarakar and also claimed decree for possession against defendants No.1 & 2. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record dismissed the suit holding that defendant No.2 is duly appointed Sarvarakar by Mohatra Mandir Headquarter on 28-101997 vide Ex.D-2 and also dismissed the counter-claim of defendant No.3 holding that he is not entitled to work as Mahant of the said Mandir and is not entitled for the relief claimed. Thereafter, defendant

¶32

¶33

No.3 died and his legal representative filed first appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment & decree of the trial Court holding that defendant No.3 was not entitled for any relief and his counter-claim was not maintainable in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rohit Singh and others v. State of Bihar (now State of Jharkhand) 1 against which this second appeal has been preferred.

¶34

Both the Courts below have concurrently held that Rambali Das – defendant No.2 was validly appointed on the post of Mahant of the temple vide Ex.D-2 which could not be shown to be perverse by Mr. M.D. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein / LR of defendant No.3, despite all his efforts. The first appellate Court has also held that defendant No.3 in his statement before the Court in paragraph 9 has admitted that the temple is being managed by Nirmohi Akhade and further held that defendant No.3 has filed Exs.D-1 to D-8 – inland letters and could not demonstrate by any legal evidence to show that he was duly appointed Mahant and he is entitled to work as Mahant, therefore, he is not entitled for the relief claimed. It was also held that the counter-claim as mentioned in paragraph 15 is solely directed against defendants No.1 & 2 and not against the plaintiff, therefore, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rohit Singh (supra), the counter-claim is not maintainable. Paragraphs 14 & 15 of the counterclaim of defendant No.3 read as follows: -

¶35

**14;g fd oknxzLr Hkwfe eafnj dh O;oLFkk gsrq loZjkdkj dh fu;qfDr dk vf/kdkj xzke csesrjk ds jk/ksfcgkjh egar }kjk fd;k tkrk jgk gS rFkk vkt Hkh mDrkafdr Hkwfe dk egar o leLr Hkwfe

¶36

1 AIR 2007 SC 10

¶37

¶38

dh O;oLFkk dk vf/kdkj gksus izfroknh Øekad 3 dh ,dek= vf/kdkjh gSA

¶39

15;g fd mDrkafdr Hkwfe o eafnj dh O;oLFkk o loZjkdkj ds fu;qfDr gsrq izfroknh Øekad 3 dks gksus ds dkj.k izfroknh Øekad 4 o 5 ls mDrkafdr Hkwfe o eafnj dks lkSais tkus dk vkns’k fMØh iznku fd;k tkosA**

¶40

The finding of the two Courts below that defendant No.3 has failed to prove his right and title over the office of Mahant of Thakur Jugal Kishore Mandir, is a finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Similarly, the first appellate Court has rightly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rohit Singh (supra) to hold that the counter-claim is only directed against defendants No.1 & 2 and not against the plaintiff; as defendant No.3 has also claimed relief against defendants No.1 & 2, and it was solely directed against defendants No.1 & 2 (defendants No.4 & 5 are in custody of suit property) and in Rohit Singh (supra), the Supreme Court has clearly held that the counter-claim directed solely against co-defendants cannot be maintained and it has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff in the suit. As such, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit which has rightly been affirmed by the first appellate Court. I do not find any perversity or infirmity in the findings recorded by the two Courts below. Consequently, the second appeal is devoid of merit, it is liable to be and is accordingly, dismissed in limine . No order as to cost(s).

¶41

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶42

Soma

Late Mahanta Shri Ram Saran Deos Le v. Ashish Das and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Late Mahanta Shri Ram Saran Deos Le v. Ashish Das and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Umar Vaishya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omkar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manish Prakash Rana Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gautam Vs Gadari and Othrs

Prem Uraon Vs Mangal Uraon and Others

Deepsingh Vs State of Chhattisgarh